Aluminum & Bees - Further Evidence

a reply to: waynos

I understand what you are saying and I have seen much information online that backs those claims and the idea that widespread "testing" of geoengineering is probably not happening...yet. However, my "speculation", and I am allowed to do that especially on a site such as this, is that these tests have in fact been happening for quite a while now:

www.mercurynews.com...

A geoengineering test, fiercely opposed by some environmentalists, could involve wafting tiny sea-salt particles toward low-lying clouds off California's Central Coast to try to fend off sunlight. They argue that it's dangerous to tinker with the environment rather than stop the problem at its source.

The reports were funded largely by the Central Intelligence Agency, Robock said.

There is no explanation that anyone has ever offered anywhere that I have seen that explains or "proves" why, all of a sudden over the course of the last few years these "magic trails" have just started appearing when they have never existed in the past. Though the Solar Max was previously written about as passing in 2013-2014, I now see that this too has been altered:

science.nasa.gov...

If this is true and the Earth's Magnetosphere is anywhere as compromised as I have seen it reported in the past, you will be begging for the immediate application of these geoengineering sprayings. Personally, I believe it has already begun, but perhaps they are still testing. The fact that so many are ganging up here to assault my ability to hold an opinion really has me convinced that I have hit a raw nerve. To be honest, I hope they crank up the efforts because if the recent solar intensity is any indication of how things are going to be this Summer, it is not going to be only long and hot, but hazardous to your health.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: waynos


There is no explanation that anyone has ever offered anywhere that I have seen that explains or "proves" why, all of a sudden over the course of the last few years these "magic trails" have just started appearing when they have never existed in the past.

Do you mind if i have a go?

Firstly i need to address the belief that these trails didn't exist in the past. Contrails, of all kinds, have existed almost as long as powered flight with several reports of them before 1920 as aviators tried to figure out why they were appearing. They first really came to public prominence in the Battle of Britain in 1940 as RAF and Luftwaffe aircraft whirled around in the skies over southern England. This spectacle inspire a famous work of art, while photographers also captured images as seen below;

Later in the war, as the USAAF bombed Germany from high altitude in daylight, the contrails of bomber streams became a more common sight;

So the notion that such trails did not exist can be seen to be patently false.

It's true that these contrails are far more prevalent now than at any time in the past and its this prevalence that causes suspicion and helps promote the mistaken belief in chemtrails. There are several factors however that, when taken together, perfectly well explain how there are more and bigger trails than ever before. Feel free to research any or all of the following in greater depth if you wish;

1 - Aircraft numbers. Since 1945, when commercial aviation once again became a major focus of aircraft manufacturers, the worlds commercial fleets have grown year on year to previously unimaginable levels. Here I provide the World Airliner Census. The first going only as far back as 1980, where is will be seen that quite a few ww2 vintage transports were still actively operated, the second to the most recent census from 2014;

World Airliner Census 1980

World Airliner Census 2014

One salient point that stands out from these is that while, in 1980, the worlds best selling airliner was the Boeing 727 with 1,800+ orders from 1962-80, in the 2014 edition Airbus has sold almost that many A320neo's before the first one has even entered service. This illustrates that vast growth in fleet numbers pretty well, without looking at the totals.

2. Engine type - A further look at these censuses will also reveal that in 1980, only the very largest transports like the 747 and DC-10 were powered by High-Bypass Ratio (HBPR) turbofans, and in relatively few numbers, whilst in 2014 they power aircraft in every class from the 550 seat A380 down to the 36 passenger Dornier 328JET.
The significance of this is that these aircraft typically cruise at higher altitudes than many of the old piston and turbojet powered aircraft they replace, in colder air where trails are more likely to form.

In addition to this a HBPR engine is more likely to produce a contrail than a turbojet in identical conditions anyway. This was explored by nasa when flying an old tech 707 alongside a modern A340 to measure the difference.

This is because of the nature of the engine. Older turbojets worked purely on the 'suck-bang-blow' principle where air is drawn in the intake, compressed and mixed with fuel, ignited and ejected out the back. In the High Bypass engine, it is only the central core of the engine that works this way, while a huge fan is attached to the front of the engine and up to 90% of the air drawn in to produce thrust is merely compressed and ejected by this fan, without any ignition at all. See pic below;

This results in a much lower fuel burn and greater efficiency than if modern engines were still 'pure jet' giving less pollution and, more importantly for the airlines, lower fuel bills. It also results in a cooler exhaust, which freezes more readily, and the sudden depressurisation of the air behind the fan causes the moisture contained within this bypass air to be released, in the same way you can see a wisp of moisture on a pressurised pop can when you open it. This, plus the water content of the exhaust, aided by any atmospheric dust and soot particles in the exhaust is why you get more trails.

3 - Aircraft size. This is not a reason that trails exist, but is is a factor in them being more visible. The RR RB211 of the first generation Boeing 747's in 1970 produced about 20,000lbs of thrust . The engines that power todays A380's and 777-300's, the trent and GE90, are in the 90,0000-100,000lb thrust class, up to five times bigger!

Remember the Battle of Britain contrails i mentioned that wowed the population in 1940? Well look at the difference in size of a Spitfire and a Boeing 787;

Don't you think it would be suspiciously odd if there WEREN'T more and bigger contrails today than in the past?

Here is a photo of an older and smaller type with HBPR engines, its a 1982 A310, pictured last Sunday. You can clearly see the jet thrust from its CF6 engines and yet some people claim 'chemtrails' are in the fuel? How ridiculous would that be, given that no evidence has ever been found of anything, but look at this. Spraying out all over the place and every five minutes as the next plane goes and the next. But still there is nothing to be found after 20 years of supposed spraying? Someone is going to have to come with a theory they have actually thought through before i fall for it.

a reply to: waynos

You are certainly good at what you do, and very persistent, also another admirable quality. I would like you to take notice that at this point were many would deploy catch phrases or counter words, I am simply going to say that you have done a jolly good job of putting your point out there. I still ask anyone out there still looking for answers to consider all that is presented to you and continue to do your own research and never, never resort to childish bashing because we are all entitled to our own opinion. The Truth is out there, somewhere. Find it.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

I always consider what is presented. I only dismiss it if i find it flawed. thank you for reading. Do you wish to address any of those points, or do you feel it a reasonable explanation of the 'contrail explosion'?

What my post doesn't attempt to do is to say that its all perfectly harmless. For all we know it may be, or it may be damaging and we are ignorant of the fact. I'm merely addressing why there are more trails than before .

a reply to: waynos

Well first of all I am not willing to accept a comparison with the rotary aircraft engines of WWII and modern jet aircraft, though your work was well done. However you do go on to say that you are not attempting to say it is all harmless, so I would have to say at this point that we have overcome our primitive human emotions and are discussing this on an intellectual basis, which is absolutely great. Thank you.

When I refer to the fact that the skies and trails are different than they were in the past I am referring to the 70's and 80's and 90's. I played a lot of baseball as an outfielder and have always ridden a motorcycle as my primary form of transportation. This has allowed me to spend a lot of time looking upward and noticing the sky and to my recollection, these things have only come onto the scene recently. I also spend a lot of time star gazing, but that is a story for another time and place. It is always sad when people tell me that they do not look up, but I guess that is America for you. You will probably never convince me other than I believe on this subject, but that should not mean that we cannot exist in peace despite this fact.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Because engines don't stay the same. They get more efficient as time goes on, which means they leave more contrails, and more persistent contrails.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well with all due respect, I would argue that if they were actually more efficient, they would create less byproducts. And we have not really discussed the idea that perhaps one of the important factors in this "global warming" scenario is all the crap that is being spewed out by the ridiculous amount of commercial air traffic out there. Yes I said that and I will go on to recount all of the times I went through the trouble of flying coast to coast to attend meetings in my day where I said, " Seriously, you called me all the way out here for THIS"! I suppose that was a rant, sorry.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

The newer engines bypass 90% of air. That means that a lot more hot, moist air is going into the surrounding environment than previously. So they produce contrails lower, and in conditions that engines didn't previously.

You can see it in this picture of an A340 with new engines, flying next to a 707 with old engines.



It's not the byproducts that are causing the contrails, it's the air going through the engine that pushes it into supersaturation that's causing them.

It's really funny, almost hilarious, sorry. I was over on another site where they were talking the same subject in relationship to the California drought. I use that site only for reference, I do not post because when I do I always get banned (I am very anti war which pisses them off), but anyway it is so amusing to see how adamant the "it's ok nothing to see here move on alonger's" are beating the same dead horse in their rejection to any and every attempt to investigate this issue. I must admit that I am close to giving up on this and settling back to watch as the SHTF and it all craps out and every one of the "don't worry about it's" just trample each other to death in panic in their rush for the door. Amazing, simply amazing....

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

And how many years do you have studying aviation? Working on planes? Studying weather? Those of us that keep saying nothing is happening tend to be those that have spent many years studying those subjects.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand, and you are right, I would have a totally different perspective on these issues had I followed the path which you describe rather than the one I did working with, generals, chiefs of staffs of the army and elected and appointed officials. I think it may have tainted my outlook.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Yes, because working with a general will certainly tell you about how a high bypass turbofan works. Working with a government official is going to tell you how much volume a 747F can carry. Absolutely.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well actually, we owned them and always will. They love the big paychecks don't you know. They have BIG bills.

I am sorry, I am not supposed to speak like this, I understand, but it is the truth and so I feel compelled to spout it. All accounts of human history have been a repeated story of those with the intelligence, skills and abilities pandering to their wealthy masters for paychecks or if they were lucky, long term employment. The most called for service that these wealthy masters have always lusted for was military advantage over their enemies, (which were always many), and historically took the form of swords, firearms, machine guns, and on and on. The ultimate bomb was always the epitome of desires, but control of the weather was certainly the next best thing and the US military has been going balls to the wall in this direction since the early 50's. Many of you wish to discount this and their ability to achieve such lofty goals, I say ignorance is no excuse. But that's just me. Sorry.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
I am sorry, I am not supposed to speak like this, I understand, but it is the truth and so I feel compelled to spout it. All accounts of human history have been a repeated story of those with the intelligence, skills and abilities pandering to their wealthy masters for paychecks or if they were lucky, long term employment. The most called for service that these wealthy masters have always lusted for was military advantage over their enemies, (which were always many), and historically took the form of swords, firearms, machine guns, and on and on. The ultimate bomb was always the epitome of desires, but control of the weather was certainly the next best thing and the US military has been going balls to the wall in this direction since the early 50's. Many of you wish to discount this and their ability to achieve such lofty goals, I say ignorance is no excuse. But that's just me. Sorry.

Everyone here is a aware of things like Operation Popeye and Geoengineering. Yes, contrails create pollution, affect the climate and look bad. What we are trying to say is that those white lines across the sky are just contrails and we have nothing to indicate otherwise.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Truth you say? Ignorance is no excuse?

Just on this page your ignorance about jet engines was swiftly exposed, yet you've shrugged it off as if it's nothing. It's not nothing and you don't have all the answers despite what you would like us to believe.

How can anyone actually believe your truth when you are so ignorant?

a reply to: anton74

Good for you, rest peacefully with your knowledge it will comfort you when you need it most.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You know, I never looked at it that way. Your insight has enlightened me to my own inabilities. Bless you.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: anton74

Good for you, rest peacefully with your knowledge it will comfort you when you need it most.

Why would I need it most? I have no need for beliefs. Peace, happiness, love, sorry, or sadness they are nothing more than feelings. Science has brought us a lot of knowledge, how we feel about that is meaningless.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Oh I could actually give you some insight, such as the fact that nearly 3 billion pounds of barium and aluminium was released into the environment from GROUND sources over 10 years.

But no, it's from jet trails..

Your sarcasm aside, maybe you should look at things another way?